scoutldr

My boss also declined to join with his son for the same reason. His rationale...he is a senior military officer with a Top Secret clearance. That should be sufficient, without disclosing his SSN to a group of volunteers parents who are not legally accountable safeguard the information. As Bob said, the vast majority of identity theft is from visitors to your home...or the Cubmaster's home. A secretary in our office recently was selected for a promotion with the USCG...when they ran her credit history for a security clearance, she found out she was the victim of identity theft when she bought a new car last year. Someone at the car dealership was the perp. It cost her the job, with no recourse. The Department of Homeland Security takes this very seriously, and so should we. I would think that BSA, Inc. could come up with a solution. I would feel better if the information were in a lot fewer hands.

As I have stated in other posts, as a member of the District Committee, I am occasionally asked to sit on Eagle Boards of Review as the "District Representative". While most Eagle Boards are joyous, explorative discussions with exemplary young men, on two occasions, this has not been the case, and in my opinion, the SM and Troop Committee were remiss in their responsibilities by even scheduling the Board, and they were either equally morally bankrupt or wanted someone else to be the "bad guy". I have not decided if I should disclose the details, however, these events have left me questioning the value and reputation of the Eagle Scout medal, and hoping sincerely that this is not a nationwide trend. It would certainly explain why the percentage of Eagles has been rising in past years to somewhere around 5% now. We can have all the Eagles we want if we are willing to turn a blind eye to serious character flaws and un-Scoutlike behavior when not in uniform. Is it a coincidence, or did the percentage start going up when units were granted authority to conduct their own Eagle BOR? I would like to pose a question to the collective wisdom of the group: Is there anything in a young man's record, character or actions that should automatically disqualify him from being granted an Eagle Board? And who should make the decision? I'm not talking about the obvious advancement requirements or avowed homosexuality or atheism. We all know that you need to be straight, believe in a God, and have 21 MB. Should there be a list of "fatal flaws", that say, "if you are guilty of any of these, don't even bother filling out the application"??? Or, should we continue turning a blind eye and keep cranking them out? Perhaps I am just old fashioned and need to accept that "morally straight" just ain't what it used to be, and find another hobby that doesn't challenge my moral conscience. This last experience left me wanting to grab the SM by the throat and say, "which part of the Scout Oath and Law don't you understand????"

Read the FBI warning on your DVD very carefully ...

OGE - I merely stated what is...not that I agreed with it. Chill!

While Ed's response was blunt, it was to the point. Such devices are portable, but they are generally not allowed in your school classroom, either. There is a time and place for everything, and things get "banned" usually because someone did not have the common sense to be discrete, and was using the device when they should be doing something else. In the troop I serve, anything is permitted, as long as it is used in the privacy of one's own bunk (with headphones on low volume), or during designated "free time". If it interferes with the program, or I can hear it, then it gets locked in the car and returned when we get home.(This message has been edited by scoutldr)(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

Eagle COH, same scenario. Troop looked like they had just come in from a weekend campout and threw on their scout shirts. Had not rehearsed the ceremony, and the SPL flubbed his lines. Not even the DE, CC, or SM were properly uniformed. I spent a couple of hours cleaning and pressing my uniform and getting everything pinned on properly. I was embarrassed to be a part of the same organization.

(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

Thanks, Carol. I lost my Dad 10 years ago on Feb 17. This is always a tough day for me. My own sons are grown now and have jobs that require them to be working, but I'll probably hear from them this evening. As I did with my own Dad, they always ask me, "what do you want for Father's Day". Like my own dad, I tell them, "I don't need anything". The fact that they are living their lives in a productive, honorable fashion is all the reward I need. I understand that now.

I have a friend who takes annual vacations to Africa and is a semipro photographer. He takes several multi-gigabite cards. He tells me that taking pictures in "raw" format lets him get many more shots per card. Don't ask me what that means...

SW, sorry for the miscommunication. I thought you meant that the mini-sashes were in the catalog. I assume by "mini-sash", they are referring to the small white cloth strips that are a miniature of the OA sash, with a button hole in one end. Those are available on eBay, and are not in the official BSA catalog and are not uniform items, unless worn on the right pocket as a temporary patch, I guess. The "universal arrow", which is also called the "pocket rocket" around here, is a small sterling silver arrow suspended from the right pocket button on a red and white ribbon. It signifies successful completion of the Ordeal, whereas the lodge flap is worn only by members-in-good-standing of their local lodge. You are, of course, correct about the anniversary awards. Sorry for the oversight.(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

If I can't bring my chair, I'm not going.

Unless the privilege has been revoked for cause.

I must have a defective catalog... OA sashes are to be worn only at OA functions. Never at a Court of Honor, Board of Review, or troop meeting. Nothing is authorized to be worn ON the OA sash. Sashes of any kind are never worn on the belt. As far as I know, the "mini-sash" is not an official uniform item.

Hunt, You could be describing a co-worker of mine, and he's 58 years old! Personalities may change over time, but not because of anything you will do. Find the good in the lad and capitalize on that.

In this council, we are made to feel like traitors if we go out of council to camp, and don't "support your council camp". I don't see the point. As long as there are "butts in bunks", who cares what council they are from?

Kristi, Semper is on the right track. Your e-mail immediately starts out highlighting the negative, reminding people that the "camp is not what it could be." That immediately turns people off ... they say, she's right, that camp is the pits. Even the name "Twilight camp" sounds negative to me...sounds like a rest home for old scouters! If you are going to reinvent the camp, then bury the old one and leave it buried and never mention it again. Start a new camp. New name, new Director, new program, new location (if possible), etc. Say nothing negative in your e-mail. Highlight only positive things. You need to instill excitement and enthusiasm and if you embody that, it will be contagious. Good luck!

No criticism was intended, Blueheron...good luck with your new position. As an experienced camp staffer, you already know that most of your time will be devoted to homesickness and ticks. In the part of the country you're in, read up on Lyme disease and deer ticks. Ticks need to be removed as soon as possible to prevent transmission of the Borrelia spirochete. Let us know of your experiences after camp!

I know how to get to Eamonn...tax his tea!

I think common sense is called for. The question is about medals. On formal occasions, as mentioned above, I wear my Eagle, Pro Deo Et Patria (Lutheran religious award), Scouter's Training Award and Scouter's Key. When I was a Cub, there were no religious awards, however I would not wear it as an adult. I also would not wear my third-place Pinewood Derby medal. We have a young ASM who wears full medals to every meeting - Roundtables, OA Chapter meetings, etc. Looks kinda ridiculous. I have been asked to speak at an Eagle COH this afternoon (as a friend of the family), and was wrestling with what to wear...uniform or business suit. Medals/no medals. I called the Dad, who is the SM and an Eagle, and his answer was "full dress uniform, of course. Why do you ask?"

That's my point, Eamonn. Don't judge the book by it's gray (or white) cover. Just because an SM is "experienced", doesn't mean they know what they are doing. Do they have 30 years of experience, or one year of experience times 30? Yes, leaders should repeat training...the program has changed since 1965. That's one of the purpose of Roundtables, to present new information and keep everyone on the same sheet of music. Problem is attendance, which in my district is pretty sad.

"Personal Appearance, including proper height-weight ratio" I assume that also eliminates those who look anorexic, or is the discrimination just against fat people?

Not to throw any stones, but I find a little odd that someone hired as a "Health Officer" of a camp has to ask these questions. blueheronEVF, are you a licensed EMT or do you hold any other credentials that would qualify you for the position? Are you going to be the only medical support for the camp?

Eammon said, "I wasn't going to ask the SM who doesn't use the methods of Scouting to present a session on them. To my way of thinking this sends the wrong message to the participants.' This was a perfect opportunity to "train" the errant SM. Having to learn the methods and present them to others may have got him to thinking...the students probably are new and don't know him or his history. When I was a new Training Chair, the DE "helped" me by signing up some "experienced" old gray haired SMs who were wearing 30 year service stars. I never asked them again. Their ignorance of the program was appalling, although they are revered as pillars of the Council.

OGE: I hear you and understand completely. Seems like some who offend get banned and some don't. I'm still trying to figure out the criteria. Don't you at least get a square knot or something? Thanks for your cheerful service, and I hope you will continue adding your wit and wisdom to the forum.

The older I get, the more I hate phones. They are so...shall we say, rude. Answer me, right now, I don't care if it's convenient for you or not. Even more rude are those who refuse to leave a message on my machine, and keep calling back every 15 minutes. I now have caller-ID and screen my calls...turns out only a small percentage are from people with whom I actually wish to converse. I have come to prefer e-mail. I can send the same message to a dozen people at once, and if they are cooperative, I can have answers in 24 hrs. Much preferable to me spending every evening on the phone leaving messages on others' machines, then waiting for them to call me back at inopportune moments, if at all. If people check their e-mail regularly and respond promptly, it works like a charm. If not, they probably won't return my phone calls, either, so I've still saved a lot of time.